Skip to main content

Nutro Pet Food held accountable for Marketing Claim

Related News


  1. Marsha

    Maybe this will help with other dog food companies. Time to be honest on your dog food bags! Or we will come and get you.

  2. Beth

    I am by no means sticking up for the pet food companies because they are big business and basically all of them are globally sourcing their products – but I also think a lot of these claims/lawsuits are driven by consumers hoping to get a fast buck. This would have to be a dry probiotic – how could it be a live probiotic – as far as I know that would only be in a yogurt – etc.

    I have also feed Blue Buffalo for years and have nothing but healthy pets – love the product, the company., the fact that they cold form a vitamin kibble and the price is a great value for what you get. Feel the same way about all those who have joined the class action suit against them. Just suing in this litigious society is wrong and proves nothing.

    I think people also need to be wary of reports like this – The FDA is the official site for a recall, etc. – and I can remember a post awhile back on here about Blue being bought out by Mars – that has not happened as far as I know……….

  3. Pacific Sun

    True this case involves Nutro not BB. But BB is hardly in a better place to be defended. They’re the folks who claimed no by-products then blamed the supplier instead of taking responsibility for testing ingredients before inclusion. It took a lawsuit to uncover their “oversight.” Probiotics can be in a PF just as long as the consumer doesn’t expect them to be of “particular value.” The Nutro lawsuit is about claiming just that. PF can not “CLAIM” much more than being formulated under AAFCO guidelines, and they do so by confirming a ratio of minimum percentages of required protein, fat, moisture & carbohydrates. What companies do in addition (to be competitive) is “imply” other benefits through images, descriptive language (i.e., tarter control) and human food (like) analogies! The Nutro settlement wasn’t an admission of (intentional) wrong doing, but they had to (or agreed to) pay court costs, and a minimum payback (coupon) to affected customers! For what was at stake I doubt the litigants would have gone to all the time, trouble and risk of expense to prove a minor point, except for the principle of misleading intention. It was the idea that another PF company has to be reigned in when it comes to promoting exceptional PF. Good for the Class Action suitors, and hopefully encourages other consumer watchdogs! That’s the real point. Frivolous litigation is probably the least apparent in the PFI because it’s such an uphill battle.

    A Follower (with a Sheba Innu) on another thread has a new puppy looking for diet recommendations because of so much confusion. Sadly there are no (or few) responses. Because it’s tough, you can’t just rattle off a long list of brands that you’d be comfortable with every single day. It comes to choosing the lesser of so many evils. For convenience and economy kibble has to be choice many times. Okay but for optimal health then augment with whole, fresh foods, and/or rotated with raw. Owners should use different brands and formulas (recipes) not only so a pet will learn to eat variety, but to get a wide range of ingredients/nutrients. Too many pets are relegated to a single diet of the same brand/meal over and over again. That’s where problems begin. Pets can appear to be healthy (good at masking symptoms) but concerns arise during the aging process when they’re less able to self-correct. In the end, the fear is what will contribute (unnecessarily) to the premature demise of a pet. Human grade, dependable processing, plus a variety of whole food just helps tip the odds in their favor (long term).

  4. Peter

    I would suggest that the $375K spent on attorney’s fees is regarded by the parent company merely as an ordinary cost of business.

Leave a Reply